The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
You know, not everyone thinks that a rectum is a sexual organ.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
1. The censuring of the marines by the city council. Reminds me of silly college referendums. "We don't like this and are officially calling it bad. Poof!"
2. Giving public resources to a group on a continuous basis at a much lower cost (free) than other similar groups. They are, in essence, giving public taxpayers money to support this group.
I don't care for #1 - seems petty and ineffective, but is merely the first step in actually getting rid of them, or at least making it hard for them to work there. It's misguided in that the office has no control over the policy, so it won't have the intended effect, at most the office will move or go away, and a slight drop in enrollment will occur. Wonder how many that office contributes, and whether they actually get a significant number of peope to join that would join if they were in another location.
As far as number 2 - if none of my tax money is going to support this organization (ie, the city isn't getting any federal funding for its parking spaces, sidewalks, etc) then hey, it's up to the people who live there. They elected their leaders, let them stew in their own petty messes.
If I lived there, I'd demand that my favorite non-profit got the same access to downtown that pink gets, and I'd probably start several organizations and clog the place up. It's ludicrious that they should favor one group over all the others.
Does anyone feel that the city itself is right in sanctioning this sort of thing?
Well, for one thing, I don't think the city would have been right in forbidding the protests. The right of the people to gather and protest something is very important IMO. So in this line of thought, the city giving it an official stamp of approval along with a specific place, dates, start and end times, is a good thing, in that it keeps the protests organised and minimizes disturbance and trouble for bystanders.
What I don't like is that they singled out Code Pink in this affair. First of all the more I learn about Code Pink the less I like them. Moreover, I'm sure there are more relevant groups with more reasonable demands and more public support that would have been better suited for these protests. Something more along the lines of "stop persecuting gays" and less along the lines of "stop wars and close down the military" would have been a lot more serious IMO.
A better way of doing it would have been to issue the same number of free parking/noise licences, but instead of giving them all to one group, to distribute them equally among a number of groups that applied for them. You could make them transferable as well, so that if two groups want to swap dates, or if one group wants to give it away to another one, they can do it without going through the city each time. And the city doesn't look like it's playing favourites with protest groups (especially with one that doesn't deserve it IMO).
tl;dr: I think the city is right in theory but not in the implementation.
The city by definition should be allowing nonviolent, peaceful protests within its borders under most circumstances. My problem is that they are going above and beyond in this particular case. Even if they had some perfectly fair plan to distribute free parking passes and things like that to multiple groups, they are still singling out the USMC.
You know, not everyone thinks that a rectum is a sexual organ.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that gay people are closet pedophiles and utterly incapable of controlling their raging desire for buttsex.
I think he is trying to draw parallels between a situation like the military and a situation like girl scouts, and trying to say that since you can't control for every person in a given situation (and in the case of the military, the cost of this lack of control could contribute to someone dying) that you shouldn't try at all. He doesn't do it very eloquently, but I think he is trying to make a real point. Whether you agree or not is a different issue.
The city by definition should be allowing nonviolent, peaceful protests within its borders under most circumstances. My problem is that they are going above and beyond in this particular case. Even if they had some perfectly fair plan to distribute free parking passes and things like that to multiple groups, they are still singling out the USMC.
Well the US Military does get a lot of special protection and special treatment, that other groups do not get. And they have been for decades. So they're not being singled out for the first time here, they've been singled out for a long time.
But that's for the military. I don't know why the city is going after the USMC specifically (except for the fact one of its members is a resentful ex-marine). The article is rather silent on that point. Are there even recruitment centres in Barkley for the other branches of the service? Are they being targeted by similar measures and protests?
I think he is trying to draw parallels between a situation like the military and a situation like girl scouts, and trying to say that since you can't control for every person in a given situation (and in the case of the military, the cost of this lack of control could contribute to someone dying) that you shouldn't try at all. He doesn't do it very eloquently, but I think he is trying to make a real point. Whether you agree or not is a different issue.
No, there's no real point there. All there is is homophobia and long-debunked dogma.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
The military allows all three in. For the latter two, it only disallows membership of violent or extremist groups or those dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government. For the first, you can be a professed nudist all day long, so long as you abide by the uniform regulations and public decency laws.
Your argument re: team cohesion (insofar as there is an argument there) is basically Black People Will Disrupt the Unit redux, and we all know how that turned out.
You know, not everyone thinks that a rectum is a sexual organ.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
You're right. This has been clearly proven by the fact that there has never, ever been a gay person in the military. Oh wait... there have been gay people in the military for the entire span of human existance. Clearly the fact that they rape every guy they see is the biggest military cover-up since Area 51.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
You know, I never understood why being gay meant that you couldn't keep your hands to yourself. It's not as if straight servicemen have ever acted out of turn.
I think he is trying to draw parallels between a situation like the military and a situation like girl scouts, and trying to say that since you can't control for every person in a given situation (and in the case of the military, the cost of this lack of control could contribute to someone dying) that you shouldn't try at all. He doesn't do it very eloquently, but I think he is trying to make a real point. Whether you agree or not is a different issue.
Because heaven forbid that their rigorous screening process let someone slip through who might be a danger to the mission.
When I was in the service I had a SMSGT who was a lesbian. She worked for Combat Camera before she transfered to our unit. She brought her girlfriend to functions. Not a big deal.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
They're already in the communal showers. DADT doesn't say "WE KILL GAYS", it says if they find out you are, you're out. Which means they were already in, and in your shower. Hey look, less reported sexual misconduct in the men's shower room then male on female sexual violence when deployed.
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
If you take into account beliefs, sexual status, or anything else in your team makeup while under fire, please inform your nearest person up the chain and get removed from combat service. They'd save your life, you owe them the exact same. And I have never in my life met an infantryman who would allow a squadmate to die, no matter how much they dislike them.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Either you're implying that gay men are pedophiles, or that gay men cannot morally guide young men. Unless you want to offer some Non-Hateful explanation.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
This also possibly has to do with badge requirements to lead a troop. It's kind of hard to have girlscout badges as a boy. However, it does appear that straight women can run a Cub Scout troop as a Den Leader. So um, girls can be trusted with small children, why can't men?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
But sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a straight woman is fine. Also: At what point in scouting did you go alone with any adult into the woods. Troops are lead by multiple adults.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
That was, by far, the most absurdly hateful posting I've ever seen on these boards. Maybe I should read more, but dear sir: you are operating under the assumption that men magically cannot keep their dicks out of things. By these rules, I should never, EVER be allowed to go camping with females or sexual hijinx will occur. I mean christ, by this line of logic, simply walking into a bar should land you a rape charge. It's just not worth the risk of something bad happening.
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that will stop (at least after a lawsuit) once somebody pro-military petitions for and is denied the use of the parking space to show support for the military. Governments can make regulations regarding time and place for free speech, but they can't go around singling out specific viewpoints to support and suppressing any others.
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that will stop (at least after a lawsuit) once somebody pro-military petitions for and is denied the use of the parking space to show support for the military. Governments can make regulations regarding time and place for free speech, but they can't go around singling out specific viewpoints to support and suppressing any others.
Who says they won't give them a fair shake? It'd be silly not to.
I can see how it might make for an uncomfortable environment if you're in a free shower and you know there's a gay dude in there with you. Even if you're not a homophobe that thinks every gay person is a rape machine, it's not unreasonable that it would make you uncomfortable for a gay guy to see you showering.
That said, I don't see why the showering arrangements have to be the way they are. What's the problem with a private shower? Is a free shower really all that vital to a soldier's mental conditioning that it necessitates keeping it even if it means discriminating against a not-insignificant portion of the population?
And if it is, that's still a stupid reason to keep gays out of the military and it's the only thing where I can see there could possibly be a problem.
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that will stop (at least after a lawsuit) once somebody pro-military petitions for and is denied the use of the parking space to show support for the military. Governments can make regulations regarding time and place for free speech, but they can't go around singling out specific viewpoints to support and suppressing any others.
I can see how it might make for an uncomfortable environment if you're in a free shower and you know there's a gay dude in there with you. Even if you're not a homophobe that thinks every gay person is a rape machine, it's not unreasonable that it would make you uncomfortable for a gay guy to see you showering.
That said, I don't see why the showering arrangements have to be the way they are. What's the problem with a private shower? Is a free shower really all that vital to a soldier's mental conditioning that it necessitates keeping it even if it means discriminating against a not-insignificant portion of the population?
And if it is, that's still a stupid reason to keep gays out of the military and it's the only thing where I can see there could possibly be a problem.
Communal showers are cheaper to install and easier to clean. That's probably the main reasons, but as I said once out of basic, showering is private for the most part.
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Well, I was a combat engineer, and we're really terrible people all around. No rapes, no orgies. But some way inappropriate physical contact, and some serious sexual harassment on so many terrible levels.
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
Dear Daft, Fucking Hippie:
When did I do that, hmmmm? Did it seem to your confused little brain that I was some how waving the flag in some orgasmic fit of patriotism?
Hah, if you only knew.
But that would deny you your tantrum, so continue with your self-rightious tyrade.
Man, have you ever asked your brother how he feels about the situation in Iraq? I get a myriad of responses from service-people coming back from Iraq. Assuming that all soldiers support the war is not the best thing to do.
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Why the hell do you have to assume it was orgies and ass rapes?
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Why the hell do you have to assume it was orgies and ass rapes?
I wasn't serious I just wanted him to come clean with what he was insinuating. Turns out it was solders talking shit and generally being "mean". I've never know that to happen when a bunch of guys get together.
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Why the hell do you have to assume it was orgies and ass rapes?
I wasn't serious I just wanted him to come clean with what he was insinuating. Turns out it was solders talking shit and generally being "mean". I've never know that to happen when a bunch of guys get together.
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Why the hell do you have to assume it was orgies and ass rapes?
I wasn't serious I just wanted him to come clean with what he was insinuating. Turns out it was solders talking shit and generally being "mean". I've never know that to happen when a bunch of guys get together.
Then what's your point?
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, Fuzzy. Anthony just said that "got a whole lot worse than dropping the soap 'jokes'" and left it at that. Who the hell knows what that could mean? He wanted clarity.
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
Why the hell do you have to assume it was orgies and ass rapes?
I wasn't serious I just wanted him to come clean with what he was insinuating. Turns out it was solders talking shit and generally being "mean". I've never know that to happen when a bunch of guys get together.
Then what's your point?
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, Fuzzy. Anthony just said that "got a whole lot worse than dropping the soap 'jokes'" and left it at that. Who the hell knows what that could mean? He wanted clarity.
Posts
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
Margaret Thatcher
My.
Lord.
1. The censuring of the marines by the city council. Reminds me of silly college referendums. "We don't like this and are officially calling it bad. Poof!"
2. Giving public resources to a group on a continuous basis at a much lower cost (free) than other similar groups. They are, in essence, giving public taxpayers money to support this group.
I don't care for #1 - seems petty and ineffective, but is merely the first step in actually getting rid of them, or at least making it hard for them to work there. It's misguided in that the office has no control over the policy, so it won't have the intended effect, at most the office will move or go away, and a slight drop in enrollment will occur. Wonder how many that office contributes, and whether they actually get a significant number of peope to join that would join if they were in another location.
As far as number 2 - if none of my tax money is going to support this organization (ie, the city isn't getting any federal funding for its parking spaces, sidewalks, etc) then hey, it's up to the people who live there. They elected their leaders, let them stew in their own petty messes.
If I lived there, I'd demand that my favorite non-profit got the same access to downtown that pink gets, and I'd probably start several organizations and clog the place up. It's ludicrious that they should favor one group over all the others.
What I don't like is that they singled out Code Pink in this affair. First of all the more I learn about Code Pink the less I like them. Moreover, I'm sure there are more relevant groups with more reasonable demands and more public support that would have been better suited for these protests. Something more along the lines of "stop persecuting gays" and less along the lines of "stop wars and close down the military" would have been a lot more serious IMO.
A better way of doing it would have been to issue the same number of free parking/noise licences, but instead of giving them all to one group, to distribute them equally among a number of groups that applied for them. You could make them transferable as well, so that if two groups want to swap dates, or if one group wants to give it away to another one, they can do it without going through the city each time. And the city doesn't look like it's playing favourites with protest groups (especially with one that doesn't deserve it IMO).
tl;dr: I think the city is right in theory but not in the implementation.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that gay people are closet pedophiles and utterly incapable of controlling their raging desire for buttsex.
But that's for the military. I don't know why the city is going after the USMC specifically (except for the fact one of its members is a resentful ex-marine). The article is rather silent on that point. Are there even recruitment centres in Barkley for the other branches of the service? Are they being targeted by similar measures and protests?
wrestling matches in the showers, towel toga parties, the famous "field fuck" ... and the list goes on.
Therefore, I hate the military and everyone in it.
...
Wait, what? There seems to be a gap of information between your premise and your consequent, there.
No, there's no real point there. All there is is homophobia and long-debunked dogma.
The military allows all three in. For the latter two, it only disallows membership of violent or extremist groups or those dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government. For the first, you can be a professed nudist all day long, so long as you abide by the uniform regulations and public decency laws.
Your argument re: team cohesion (insofar as there is an argument there) is basically Black People Will Disrupt the Unit redux, and we all know how that turned out.
If they pay property taxes, is the City of Berkley accepting them?
You're right. This has been clearly proven by the fact that there has never, ever been a gay person in the military. Oh wait... there have been gay people in the military for the entire span of human existance. Clearly the fact that they rape every guy they see is the biggest military cover-up since Area 51.
Tailhook, anyone?
Because heaven forbid that their rigorous screening process let someone slip through who might be a danger to the mission.
Bonus: She was a great NCO.
You're right, no male has anal sex with a female. Wait, does that bother everyone? Crap, kick em out.
They're already in the communal showers. DADT doesn't say "WE KILL GAYS", it says if they find out you are, you're out. Which means they were already in, and in your shower. Hey look, less reported sexual misconduct in the men's shower room then male on female sexual violence when deployed.
If you take into account beliefs, sexual status, or anything else in your team makeup while under fire, please inform your nearest person up the chain and get removed from combat service. They'd save your life, you owe them the exact same. And I have never in my life met an infantryman who would allow a squadmate to die, no matter how much they dislike them.
Either you're implying that gay men are pedophiles, or that gay men cannot morally guide young men. Unless you want to offer some Non-Hateful explanation.
This also possibly has to do with badge requirements to lead a troop. It's kind of hard to have girlscout badges as a boy. However, it does appear that straight women can run a Cub Scout troop as a Den Leader. So um, girls can be trusted with small children, why can't men?
But sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a straight woman is fine. Also: At what point in scouting did you go alone with any adult into the woods. Troops are lead by multiple adults.
That was, by far, the most absurdly hateful posting I've ever seen on these boards. Maybe I should read more, but dear sir: you are operating under the assumption that men magically cannot keep their dicks out of things. By these rules, I should never, EVER be allowed to go camping with females or sexual hijinx will occur. I mean christ, by this line of logic, simply walking into a bar should land you a rape charge. It's just not worth the risk of something bad happening.
I'm pretty sure that will stop (at least after a lawsuit) once somebody pro-military petitions for and is denied the use of the parking space to show support for the military. Governments can make regulations regarding time and place for free speech, but they can't go around singling out specific viewpoints to support and suppressing any others.
That said, I don't see why the showering arrangements have to be the way they are. What's the problem with a private shower? Is a free shower really all that vital to a soldier's mental conditioning that it necessitates keeping it even if it means discriminating against a not-insignificant portion of the population?
And if it is, that's still a stupid reason to keep gays out of the military and it's the only thing where I can see there could possibly be a problem.
(I'm not singling you out or even addressing your point of view, you're just the most recent poster to mention it)
People always pull out the shower as an example of where gay men might pose a problem in the military.
But man, if you people only knew what actually goes on in Army showers...
I was in the Army, washing is what happens and lots of "drop the soap" jokes. Mostly the Army doesn't use communal showers except in basic training.
Communal showers are cheaper to install and easier to clean. That's probably the main reasons, but as I said once out of basic, showering is private for the most part.
Been to Korea? Mostly communal showers on the old bases, and KTC. And it gets a whole lot worse than dropping the soap "jokes".
I knew tons of guys that went to korea, no reports of anything unusual. I am curious as to what exactly you are insinuating...orgies?...assrapes?...what?
I wasn't serious I just wanted him to come clean with what he was insinuating. Turns out it was solders talking shit and generally being "mean". I've never know that to happen when a bunch of guys get together.
But if you think about it, it doesn't matter.